tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hub_feeds/4129/feed_itemssothe's bookmarks2019-12-23T17:39:18-05:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25838692019-12-23T17:39:18-05:002019-12-23T17:39:18-05:00Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz Trump might free science that’s locked behind paywalls — a win for open access - Vox<blockquote>
<p><span>Reportedly, the White House may issue an executive order on federally funded research. Publishers aren’t happy.</span></p>
</blockquote>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25838652019-12-23T17:19:03-05:002019-12-30T12:02:51-05:00Nidhi SubbaramanRumours fly about changes to US government open-access policy<blockquote>
<p>A rumour that the White House is considering a policy that would make all federally funded studies free to read as soon as they are published has prompted a protest from academic publishers.</p>
</blockquote>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25216692019-09-26T06:28:46-04:002019-09-26T06:28:46-04:00WileyAGU's journal Space Weather to become open access | EurekAlert! Science News<blockquote>
<p><span>Starting 17 October, the AGU journal </span><em><em>Space Weather</em>: The International Journal of Research and Applications</em><span>, devoted to the understanding and forecasting of space weather, will transition to a fully open access model with all articles accepted after that date accessible free of charge to readers. All issues of </span><em>Space Weather</em><span> will be made openly available in January 2020.</span></p>
</blockquote>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24843092019-06-17T13:55:55-04:002019-06-17T13:55:55-04:00Daniel S. Katz, Lorena A. Barba, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Arfon M. SmithCost models for running an online open journal | Journal of Open Source Software Blog<blockquote>
<p><span>In this post, we examine the true costs of running a journal such as JOSS*, and make the case that even when considering all services we don’t currently pay for, the true cost per paper would not exceed $100. Current APCs at many “gold” open-access journals exceed that by one or more orders of magnitude, (see, for example, </span><a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/24/1900359116">PNAS</a><span>, </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/nature-journals/">Nature</a><span>, </span><a href="https://open.ieee.org/index.php/for-authors/article-processing-charges/">IEEE</a><span>, etc.)</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>*JOSS: Journal of Open Source Software </span> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24818452019-05-16T14:31:49-04:002020-05-17T09:28:29-04:00Richard Van Noorden Indonesia tops open-access publishing charts<blockquote>
<p>European funders have been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7">leading a charge under ‘Plan S’</a> to make more of the scientific literature free to read. Yet the nations that publish the highest proportion of their research papers open access (OA) aren’t in Europe, according to a preliminary analysis shared with <em>Nature</em>. Instead, countries in southeast Asia, Africa and South America are leading the way — thanks to a flourishing network of local open-access journals and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08838-6">publishing portals</a>. </p>
<p>Indonesia may be the world’s OA leader: the study found that 81% of 20,000 journal articles published in 2017 with an Indonesia-affiliated author are available to read for free somewhere online, and 74% are published with open-access licences, meaning they could be legally redistributed</p>
</blockquote>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24831902019-06-02T11:42:46-04:002019-06-03T09:25:14-04:00Andrea ChiarelliAre preprints paving the way to science in real time? - Research Consulting<blockquote>
<p>ArXiv, the most widely known preprint server, has received over <a href="https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions">1.5 million preprints </a>since its inception in 1991. BioRxiv, a growing equivalent in the life sciences that was started in 2013, hosts over 40,000 submissions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151">representing the work of over 160,000 researchers from more than 100 countries</a>. It is undeniable that preprints are a growing force in the scholarly communication landscape – but what does their future look like?</p>
</blockquote>tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24831262019-05-31T17:30:11-04:002019-05-31T17:30:11-04:00Paul Wouters, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Vincent Larivière, Marie E. McVeigh, Bernd Pulverer, Sarah de Rijcke & Ludo Waltman Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal<blockquote>
<p><span><span>Global efforts are afoot to create a constructive role for journal metrics in scholarly publishing and to displace the dominance of impact factors in the assessment of research. To this end, a group of bibliometric and evaluation specialists, scientists, publishers, scientific societies and research-analytics providers are working to hammer out a broader suite of journal indicators, and other ways to judge a journal’s qualities.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span>Here we call for the essential elements of this change: expansion of indicators to cover all functions of scholarly journals, a set of principles to govern their use and the creation of a governing body to maintain these standards and their relevance.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24829032019-05-29T17:21:55-04:002019-05-29T17:21:55-04:00The Guild: Feedback on the Implementation Guidance of Plan S <p>Feedback with recommendations and answers to two main questions. The first one comprises eleven points, aimed directly at the <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance.pdf">Implementation Guidance of Plan S</a> <span>document</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Question 1 - Is there anything unclear or are there any issues that have not been addressed by the guidance document?</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Aim and scope of Plan S</li>
<li>Plan S compliance</li>
<li>Publication costs</li>
<li>Supporting Quality Open Access Journals and Platforms</li>
<li>Timeline</li>
<li>Review</li>
<li>Compliance and Sanctioning</li>
</ol>
<p><em>Technical Guidance and Requirements</em></p>
<p> 8. Licencing and Rights</p>
<p> 9. Open Access Journals and Platforms</p>
<p> 10. Deposition of Scholarly Content in Open Access Repositories</p>
<p> 11. Transformative agreements</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Question 2 - Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs?</strong></p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24828672019-05-29T15:20:31-04:002019-05-30T13:22:30-04:00The Guild: Recommendations for Open Access and the implementation of Plan S | Science|Business<blockquote>
<p>In view of the forthcoming publication of the Plan S’ revised Implementation Guidance, The Guild has published a position paper presenting its proposals for a successful transition towards Open Access. With these recommendations, The Guild builds on its <a href="https://www.the-guild.eu/news/2019/guild-feedback_plan-s-guidance_final.pdf">submission to the Plan S consultation</a>, contributing to a wider debate about how Plan S can help realise the ambitions of Open Science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Full position paper at <a href="https://www.the-guild.eu/news/2019/12_open-science.pdf">https://www.the-guild.eu/news/2019/12_open-science.pdf</a> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/24848512019-06-23T17:42:45-04:002019-06-23T17:42:45-04:00Rick AndersonOpen Access Mandates and Open Access "Mandates" - The Scholarly Kitchen<blockquote>
<p><span>Open Access (OA) mandates generally come from one of two directions: some are imposed by funders and others are imposed by authors’ institutions. But put all mandates together, and it seems to me that they can be subdivided into three categories: those that are </span><em>not real</em><span> (meaning that they do not actually require anything of the author and therefore can’t reasonably be called “mandates”), those that are </span><em>real</em><span> (meaning that their prescriptions are at least theoretically mandatory) and those that are to some degree </span><em>powerful</em><span> (meaning not only that their prescriptions are mandatory in theory, but that they also provide mechanisms designed to compel compliance).</span></p>
</blockquote>